Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1303
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02470-JFM)
Submitted:
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
AGEE
and
November 4, 2013
THACKER,
Circuit
PER CURIAM:
In June 2009, respondents ICF International, Inc., and ICF
Z-Tech,
Inc.
Information
contract)
(together,
Analysis
by
the
ICF)
and
were
Tracking
National
Cancer
awarded
the
contract
Institute
Cancer
(the
CIAT
(NCI).
In
on
the
CIAT
contract;
her
principal
responsibility
was
Buchhagen
hostile
brought
environment,
this
wrongful
against
termination,
ICF
and
asserting
retaliation
to
allege
facts
Buchhagen appeals.
plausibly
entitling
her
to
relief.
remand.
I.
We
claim
de
review
novo,
complaint.
the
district
accepting
as
true
dismissal
the
facts
of
Buchhagens
alleged
in
the
courts
complaint
pleading factual
must
content
establish
that
facial
allows
2
the
plausibility
court
to
draw
by
the
reasonable
inference
that
misconduct alleged.
the
defendant
is
liable
for
the
708 F.3d 549, 554 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
the
conditions
of
employment
and
create
an
abusive
alleges
that
that
Dr.
Beebe,
her
supervisor,
22;
yelling
and
pounding
her
hands
on
her
desk
during
against
each
other;
and
3
unfairly
scrutinizing
and
support
to
make
them
plausible.
In
any
against
performance,
her
fall
in
response
well
short
to
of
the
concerns
alleging
an
regarding
abusive
her
working
Rentals,
(Workplaces
Inc.,
are
not
521
F.3d
always
306,
harmonious
315
(4th
locales,
Cir
2008)
and
even
will
not
on
that
account
satisfy
the
severe
or
pervasive standard.).
III.
The
ADEA
employment
forbids
action
employees age.
an
against
employer
an
from
employee
taking
because
an
adverse
of
the
Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277, 283 (4th Cir. 2004) (en
banc).
sufficiently
alleges
unlawful
age
discrimination.
67
when
she
was
fired);
that
she
suffered
an
adverse
younger
that
employee.
her
age
was
See
the
J.A.
cause
57.
of
her
As
to
the
termination,
see
away
[Buchhagen]
from
colleagues,
J.A.
J.A.
28;
41;
performance-improvement
that
to
her
Beebe
move[d]
younger
and
that
plan
after
(and
responsibilities
less
Buchhagen
the
experienced)
was
October
put
2009
on
incident,
J.A.
50,
353-56;
J.A.
52-53,
370-80.
These
claim
of
age
discrimination
that
is
plausible,
not
merely speculative.
We
recognize
that
there
are
allegations
in
Buchhagens
For example,
her
age,
Buchhagen
yet
to
the
work
complaint
for
establishes
Lockheed-Martin
that
(the
Beebe
hired
company
that
See J.A. 7.
Buchhagen when she was 67 years old and, after offering her a
salary
of
$39.12
per
hour
(the
same
salary
she
received
at
that
it
1991)
did
discriminate
against
Buchhagen
(explaining
that
strong
inference
against
complaint
insubordinate.
32, 226.
could
be
construed
as
problematic
or
even
The
district
age
court
therefore
erred
discrimination claim.
6
by
dismissing
Buchhagens
IV.
The district court likewise erred by dismissing Buchhagens
retaliatory discharge claim.
To establish a
he
engaged
in
protected
activity;
(2)
an
adverse
employment action was taken against him; and (3) there was a
causal
link
action.
between
the
protected
activity
and
the
adverse
Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 432 (4th Cir. 2006) (en
banc).
As she alleges in her complaint, Buchhagen complained about
Beebes
harassment
in
March
2010
meeting
with
Beebes
clearly
suffered
an
adverse
employment
action
See EEOC v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, 424 F.3d 397, 406 (4th Cir.
2005) ([P]rotected oppositional activities may include staging
informal protests and voicing ones own opinions in order to
bring attention to an employers discriminatory activities, as
well
as
complaints
about
marks
alterations
quotation
and
suspected
violations.
omitted)).
(internal
Even
if
ICFs
discharge
claim
also
suffice
to
establish
that
id.
(Title
VIIs
anti-retaliation
provision
protects
to
protected
the
requirement
activity
and
of
her
causal
termination,
link
between
the
timing
of
the
See Hoyle
v. Freightliner, LLC, 650 F.3d 321, 337 (4th Cir. 2011) (While
evidence
as
to
the
closeness
in
time
[between
the
protected
the
requisite
causal
connection,
it
certainly
of
causality.
district
(internal
court
therefore
quotation
erred
marks
by
omitted)).
dismissing
The
Buchhagens
retaliation claim.
V.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district courts
dismissal of Buchhagens hostile environment claim, we reverse
the dismissal of her wrongful discharge and retaliation claims,
and
we
dispense
remand
with
contentions
are
for
oral
further
proceedings
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
on
those
the
the
facts
claims.
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART,
AND REMANDED